TheNorthCydeRises

That's a good observation. I definitely agree with that about ZaZa. According to nba.com's stats: * His 6.9 rpg ranked him 47th overall ( 11th amongst centers ) * His 4.2 defensive rebounds per game ranked him in a tie for 70th ( T-14th amongst centers ) * His 2.8 offensive rebounds per game ranked him 17th overall ( 4th amongst centers ) So he is a good offensive rebounder. But like you said, of those 2.8 offensive rebounds, probably 2 of them are off of his own misses.

I looked up something on ZaZa one time. When he scored 20 points or more, we were slightly above .500 ( 6 - 5 record ). I remembered that part. So now I'll go further. - When he scored 15 points or more, we were a .571 team ( 12 - 9 ) - When he scored 10 or more points, we were a .468 team ( 22 - 25 ) - When he scored less than 10 points, we were an .083 team ( 2 - 22 ) . . NOTE: Only wins were vs Orlando on Jan 23, when JJ scored 39 and Smoove scored 24 . . and against Orlando again on Jan 26, when JJ scored 34 It's the play of the frontline that loses games for us folks. They either lose it on defense, or they lose it on offense. And it happens because our frontline is inconsistent as hell. And it's not only from a point production standpoint, but more from a shooting percentage standpoint. When your center ( ZaZa ) shoots 43% in losses, your power forward ( Smoove ) shoots 41% in losses, and your small forward ( Marvin ) shoots 42% in losses, or even Shelden at 42% in losses . . that's not going to work at all. Matter of fact, that ish is unacceptable. This is why we drafted Horford, to see if he can help out in this area on a nightly basis. HE turned out to be the priority pick, not a PG. This is why Smoove should be almost FORBIDDEN to shoot the ball outside of 21 feet. This is why Marvin must work on becoming a better finisher around the rim. If Horford can pretty much prove that he can be a 50% shooter at either PF or C, we have to start the guy . . no questions asked. WE can't afford to have frontline people shooting under 45% FG. Not this year. No matter who it is . . including Josh Smith. By the way . . . Gilbert Arenas' splits: Games won ( 39 ) 32.4 ppg 6.6 asst 49% FG 43% 3FG Games lost ( 34 ) 24.1 ppg 5.3 asst 33% FG 27% 3FG I don't think there's ANY player in the league, that has a dropoff that dramatic in shooting, than Arenas. I knew this was the case with him, but I didn't know it was this dramatic of a dropoff.

Funny how fans see things. That same "wide" strike zone was being called against the Reds as well. Granted, Tex's strike 3 call was a "just a bit outside", but he should've connected on the "good" pitches he got. Two things are for sure: 1) The Braves shouldn't be losing to the Reds under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. 2) The Braves left like 10 - 11 people on base for that game. They had plenty of chances to blow that game wide open, but failed. The Reds only left 3 on base. Blame the ump if you want, but you need to blame that team.

The best 5 need to be on the floor from the jump . . no matter who it is. If not, we're going to be 1 - 5 . . 0 - 6 before we know it. No time to play around. vs Dallas Harris Terry Howard Nowitski Dampier ( JT, Dirk, and Howard killed us last year. Probably need to try to outscore them, because we can't stop them. ) @ Detroit Billups Hamilton Prince Wallace Nazr ( probably ) ( We can play with Detroit. But Stuckey is the x-factor for them now, coming off the bench. Usually when JJ has a bad game against DET, we lose. If he plays great, we win. ) @ New Jersey Kidd Jefferson Carter Kristic Magloire ( They have an interesting starting 5 now, if Mags can still hit the boards and play D. Definitely a winnable game though. ) vs Phoenix Nash Bell Marion Diaw Amare ( Definitely can't stop these guys. So we have to outscore them. Last year's home game was probably the most entertaining of the year . . even though we lost. ) @ Boston Rondo Allen Pierce Garnett Perkins ( That team isn't a juggernaut, especially if you can exploit their bench. Tough game to win on the road though. ) vs Washington Arenas Stevenson Butler Jamison Haywood ( Washington is a team we match up with very well. I'd be disappointed if we lost to them in November. ) No excuses this year, unless we're devestated by injuries again. But this year, one or two injuries ( if it isn't JJ ), shouldn't hurt us at all. If we fall too far under .500, Woody needs to get the hook. That's another parameter you need to set Diesel. If the Hawks fall more than 6 games under .500 at ANY POINT in the season, Woody needs to be canned. So if we start out November with a 4 - 11 record, and JJ isn't hurt, get rid of Woody right away. I think the rookies have a great shot at winning starting jobs. I won't be disappointed at all to see them thrown into the fire, while the vets do their thing against the other team's 2nd team. I'm not worried about Law at all, because he has no fear whatsoever. The only question these days is if Horford can play center. If he can, we're good to go. If he can't, he'll have to play to his strength and at least be a viable offensive option in the low post.

I didn't know there were so many Arenas fans in the world. That cat didn't make the USA team cut last year because of his decision making, lack of consistent shooting, and most of all . . his defense. He let Paul and Hinrich beat him out. That's sad to me. The best thing about Arenas' game to me, is his ability to get to the FT line. Even when he's having one of those 0-9 3FG, 3-18 FG nights . . he can still go 12-15 from the FT line. That helps keep his scoring average high and makes him an efficient player. LOL . . but even when he gets to the FT line, he's missing a shot. I like scoring PGs. Not machine gun ones.

OK . . fair enough. But I'm sure people are already putting Greg Oden in their top 5 - 10 centers in the NBA list. But you're right. There have been plenty of college superstars that have failed as soon as they stepped on an NBA court. I'm glad we got 2 guys who I think should have very little problem transitioning their game to the NBA style of play.

He's definitely contributing to winning basketball. Don't get me wrong, I don't totally disregard his game. When he's on, he's a very, very good player. It's just hard to really respect his overall game, when he's just shooting all the time. When you look at his game log from last season you'll see just how hot and cold this guy runs. I mean, when he's off . . he's really off. To me, he's a less talented version of Iverson, that is even more selfish than he is. I say that because at least Iverson ( in Philly ) and Kobe can use the excuse that they only have one other good player playing with him. ARenas has 2 all-star caliber players in Caron and Antwan playing with him. The Hawks, with a trio of JJ, Caron, and Antwan, would definitely be East contenders, with JJ probably equaling Arenas' assist numbers from the 2-guard spot.

Quote: The rookies don't belong there. The interesting part is Zaza/Shelden/Horford give us a 48 minutes center that at least half of the team wish they had. Do they don't belong there because they haven't played an NBA game yet? Or do they not belong because you don't think that when they'll start playing, that they'll be in the top 10 at their respective positions in the East? Just want to see where you're coming from on this.

. . or just himself? Gilbert is a machine gunner. Switch out Kidd or Billups for Arenas on that Washington team, and the Wiz are definitely better off. When KOBE of all people says that you take a lot of bad shots, you really must be a gunner. When I watch Gilbert sometimes, I'm thinking I'm watching that old Nintendo game "Double Dribble". Us "old heads" remember that game. You just go down and just shoot from anywhere. Forget setting up a play or trying to get a good shot. As soon as you cross 1/2 court, just chuck it up. That's Gilbert in a nutshell. Plus, he showed me all I needed to see last summer, when he couldn't even beat out Hinrich for one of those spots on the USA team. He played horrible in those exhibition games, then had the nerve to get mad at Coach K for not picking him up? Given the choice of Billups, Kidd, or Arenas to be the Hawks PG, there's NO WAY IN HELL I'm taking Gilbert.

(( hitting head )) TJ Ford. I knew I was missing somebody. When I was doing this, I was listing all of the good PGs that could be considered in the top 10, then rearranging them in order. Ford was on that list, but I guess I deleted his name in the shuffle, and just forgot about him. Ford would definitely be in the top 6 or 7, with Acie dropping out of the top 10. I also forgot about David Lee in that PF list. Lee would definitely have to be somewhere in the bottom half of the top 10.

Wow @ AJ leading the vote at PG. I could see that though.

I saw what DJlaysitup typed earlier today. So I decided to look through the East, and rank the players as I see them. My player rankings, especially by position, are based on where that guy played the most, not by what he actually is. For example, Jamison is a tweener 3/4, that plays like a 3. But in Washington's offense, he's the 4. So I rank him as a 4. Same with Jermaine O'Neal. He's a PF, but plays C more than PF, so I ranked him as a C. I'm sure I'll get some flack for this. And I think I'm forgetting one or two good players that should at least be honorable mentions, if not in the top 10. I think I covered everybody though. Center 1) D. Howard 2) S. O'Neal 3) J O'Neal 4) Okafor 5) B. Wallace 6) Curry 7) Dalembert 8) Mourning 9) Bogut 10) Kristic ( missed cut ) Ilgauskas Pachulia Haywood Magloire Power Forward 1) Garnett 2) Bosh 3) Jamison 4) J. Smith 5) Randolph 6) R. Wallace 7) Haslem 8) Gooden 9) Horford 10) Noah ( missed cut ) May Murphy E. Thomas Ty Thomas Small Forward 1) L. James 2) Pierce 3) Carter 4) G. Wallace 5) Butler 6) Deng 7) R. Lewis 8) Prince 9) Nocioni 10) M. Williams ( missed cut ) Childress Granger J. Graham Gomes 2-guard 1) Wade 2) J. Johnson 3) R. Allen 4) Redd 5) Hamilton 5a) Gordon 7) Iguodala 8) Hughes 9) R. Jefferson 10) J. Richardson ( missed cut ) Stuckey J. Crawford A. Parker Stevenson Point Guard 1) Billups 2) Kidd 3) Arenas 4) Hinrich 5) Marbury 6) A. Miller 7) Nelson 8) Felton 9) Mo Williams 10) Law ( missed cut ) Calderon Tinsley J. Williams Duhon *********** Top 10 overall 1) L. James 2) Garnett 3) Wade 4) Pierce 5) J. Johnson 6) Bosh 7) Carter 8) R. Allen 9) Billups 10) D. Howard ( missed cut ) Redd Kidd Arenas Shaq I'm sure there will be some disagreements with this. I was tempted to put Shaq in the overall top 10, but I just couldn't do it. And Bosh probably deserves to be ahead of JJ.

Quote: marvin scored most of his points in the first qrt. when jj often did not take the lead role in scoring. because there was not real steady ball movement with speedy and lou hurt most of the time it was up to jj to distrbute but he always had two or three defenders on him and both marvin and chill scoring went down after the first. if speedy and law can run a offence the whole game will see what both of them can do a that will allow jj to be even better then last year. Totally agree. Sounds like a guy who watched the games.

Quote: That is about where I think Marvin's scoring will average out at for this season. Post AS Break, Marvin was averaging over 14 PPG this past season. I think that is the floor of what he will do this year. I do believe that if Woody would ever increase Marvin's role in the offense, his numbers would sky rocket. Personally, I think Marvin should be the #2 option on offense. I agree. But more important for me, is what he'll shoot from the field. I want him somewhere around the 47% FG range. To up his FG% to that level, he'll need to finish around the basket close to the 55% range, which is exactly what he did in his rookie year. Anything above that percentage around the rim, and he may completely blow up this year. His 3-point range doesn't concern me, if he's committed to being a 21 feet and in player. That's exactly what Luol Deng did last year, and it helped his game tremendously. Deng only took 6 threes total last season. In 05 - 06 he took 75 threes. Deng found his niche as a player . . to be a mid-range demon from the right side of the court, that finished around the rim at a 63% clip.

Quote: The Michael Vick error, I mean era in Atlanta may be over now. It's the best thing that could happen to the Falcons, IMO. They now have an opportunity to get themselves a real quarterback. Maybe they will be able to draft Petrino's boy, Brian Brohm next year. Wow. That means the Falcons are going to be in the bottom 5 of the league this year then. And be careful what you wish for. The last coach that thought he can just plug his old college QBs to run his "system" in the pros, was Steve Spurrier. This is a devestating blow for the Falcons. ATL isn't the most passionate sports town in the world, so they need a "box office" attraction to keep their attention. I think this might have the same effect as an Iverson leaving Philly or a Kobe leaving LA. You can't lose a megastar like that, and think that everything will be OK in the long run. As long as Vick was there, a good majority of that fan base would've been content with occasional Falcon playoff appearances, even if they never went to the Super Bowl. Without Vick, that entire team better be damn good, in order to get Falcon fans to support them like they did when Vick was the star. I know ATL sports fans don't want to admit to that, but it's true. I'll give you a perfect example of what I'm talking about. 7 years ago, I'm in town for the Tennessee St - Florida A&M footbal game. The Falcons were scheduled to play the world champion St. Louis Rams that Sunday. I didn't even bother to go to the stadium to buy a ticket, because I figured that the GA Dome would be sold out not only to see the Falcons, but to see "the greatest show on turf". So I go to the ESPN Zone to watch my Bengals take on the Ravens, and figure that I could see the Rams-Falcons game at the same time. LOL. The dang game was BLACKED OUT in ATL, because it didn't sell out. I was pissed! Fast forward 4 years later. I'm in town in 2004 for the TSU vs FAMU game. And the Falcons play the Cardinals that Sunday. This time, I go to the stadium to buy tickets. I get there 2 hours before kickoff, thinking I'd have plenty of time to get tickets if they're available. LOL . . the line at that ticket office was AMAZING. By the time I got to the clerk an hour later, I was forced to sit in the only section she had left . . club level in the end zone. Not bad seats, but the only section left. That Falcon - Cardinal game was terrible. Vick was erratic as hell and was getting pressured and sacked left and right. I think he turned the ball over 3 or 4 times that game, and even got booed by the Falcon faithful at one point. The Cardinals weren't any better. It seemed like every time they get something going, McCown would fumble the dang ball. LOL . . I think Shawn King almost saved the day for the Cardinals. Then in happened. That 60 some-odd yard bootleg run with about 2 minutes left to go. That run sealed the game for the Falcons, and they won 6 - 3. That was my first and only time seeing Vick live in person. That play was what I came there to see. Yes, he was nowhere near a great passing QB. But for sheer excitement, he was a top box office draw. Now, the box office draw is Alge Crumpler? Wow. He's a nice player though. Oh well . . at least Vick provided NFL Films with enough material to remember him by. That is, if they don't try to erase him from the NFL memory banks.

Sturt, I understand the Big East question. It'll be very easy to downgrade them to Mountain West status. But even the Mountain West conference has years in which it's a pretty strong conference. I've wrestled with a lot of ideas about this. A 16 team playoff would fall in line with what everyone else in 1-AA, II, II and NAIA does, but that's too easy for 1-A I guess. I was ( and still am to a certain extent ) a firm believer in a 12-team playoff . . which would rewarded the 6 BCS champions, the next top 4 BCS teams that didn't win their conference, and have the final 2 slots filled by the highest ranked champions in the lower conference. Last year, those spots would've been filled by Boise St. and BYU. 1st tier conference champs: 1) Ohio St: Big-10 2) Florida: SEC 3) USC: Pac-10 4) Louisville: Big East 2nd tier conference champs: 1) Boise St: WAC 2) Oklahoma: Big-12 3) Wake Forest: ACC 4) BYU: Mt-West At-large: 1) Michigan 2) LSU 3) Wisconsin 4) Auburn The 2nd tier conference champs and at-large teams play in round 1, with 2nd tier champs hosting 1st round game. That would mean: 4) Auburn @ 1) Boise St 3) Wisconsin @ 2) Oklahoma 2) LSU @ 3) Wake Forest 1) Michigan @ 4) BYU Winners of these games would be re-seeded 1 - 4, and go to Round 2 to play the top tier champions on their home turf. Personally, I'd love to see that 12-team system, because it'll give the "little guy" the chance to finally play a big name team on its home turf, and it would reward those top 4 conference champs. And in a way, those 2 at large teams that just missed out, would have to play the "weakest" conference champs, possibly giving them an easier road to the 2nd round. In the end though, I think it's probably best to reduce it down to an 8-team field, with possible play-in games if necessary, instead of a flat 4 games in the first round and 4 more games in Round 2. Like you said, it's in the best interest of college football to protect the bowl system, and not totally make it irrevelevant with a 12 or 16 team playoff. I have an easy fix for that, that would satisfy most everybody . . I think. The problem though, is the friggin Rose Bowl and the Pac-10 commish. They want that Big-10 vs Pac-10 matchup every year. leave then! I would love for the other conferences to call their bluff, and just develop a playoff system without the Rose Bowl, or the involvement of the Big-10 and Pac-10. Let those teams have their Rose Bowl crown, and let the other schools fight for the national title. In 1-AA, the SWAC Conference ( the historically black colleges in the south: Grambling, Southern, Jackson St, Alabama A&M, etc ), think playing for the SWAC title is more important than playing for the 1-AA national title. Money wise, it's definitely better for them as a conference. So they pretty much exclude themselves from the whole 1-AA playoff process, just to fight for the SWAC title. And those teams in that conference are content with that. So if the Big-10 and Pac-10 feel that the Rose Bowl is so important, I say, let them go. After the national champion receives all of the accolades over the Rose Bowl champ, those conferences would go running to play in a playoff system. And it would force the Rose Bowl to change its thinking.

My bad Atlas. I did miss that. The premise is still the same though. Marvin was the potential superstar in that draft. Not Bogut, Paul, or Deron . . Marvin. Can a 13 win team afford to pass on a potential superstar, just because they needed a PG?

Let me see if I can clean up some of the BS for you then. 1. Lue was a 27 year old PG that was in the final year of his deal. He was pretty much the engine that ran our broke down car in those final 2 months. JJ and Chill's success does not come, if Lue doesn't play the PG position well enough to get them the ball in good spots. Lue's numbers those final 2 months: 15.3 ppg . . 5.4 apg . . 47% FG . . 37% 3FG . . 91% FT - in March 16.1 ppg . . 6.3 apg . . 52% FG . . 56% 3FG . . 93% FT - in April OK . . I'm just supposed to just brush that type of production off? If we got that from Law, or even Speedy this year, people would be praising the heavens and talking Eastern Conference Semifinal or Final appearance. Lue definitely has deficiencies. I've been one of his biggest critics over the years, especially his defense. But with the way he played in those final 2 months of the season, it's not out of the realm of possibility that BK told Lue: "Go ahead and see what you can get out on the market, but we'd like to have you back here. If no one offers you a deal to your liking, we'll take care of you." It may have been BK's "plan" to always get either Bogut or Marvin with that #2 pick, because he knew he had Lue in his back pocket if he needed an adequate PG to put out there with the kids. Even Paul's stellar workout wasn't enough to sway BK off of Marvin, because of his "potential" to be a star. And because most NBA stars play either the 2, 3, or 4, BK was willing to take Marvin instead of the solid PGs in Paul or Williams. I don't think that's BS at all. 2. OK, let's assume you're right. BK's plan for JJ was for him to start at the point, and be Chauncey Billups-like. Maybe not from a playmaking standpoint, but definitely from a scoring standpoint. But we all know that JJ was at the very least 4th on BK's target list, behind Allen, Redd, and Larry Hughes ( oh God, imagine this team with Hughes. We'd definitely be in trouble. ) Espn reported here that Larry Hughes had agreed to sign with Cleveland. This was on July 9th of that year. A full 2 weeks after the draft. Of course, this had been rumored for a few weeks before the actual signing, but Hughes was being courted by a number of teams, including the Hawks. But if you're right, and JJ was talking to the Hawks before the draft, then that would give even more credence to why BK took Marvin, instead of Paul or Williams. 3. I agree with that. But there's a difference between a franchise caliber PG, and a superstar caliber franchise PG. Both of those guys were definitely good enough for us to take at #2. But the fear in the NBA has always been passing over a young guy that is projected to be a star. We've seen this with Garnett, Kobe, T-Mac, Amare and a host of lesser players that turned out to be pretty good. It's easy to believe that the Hawks didn't want to be the franchise to pass over the next potential star young player. It's like KB said. It's easy to provide revisionist history on a guy who hasn't developed quite as fast as people would want him to. But at the time he was selected, he was almost a lock to go no less than #2. A team that had won 13 games the year before, couldn't afford to pass up on the guy that most "experts" thought would be the "star" out of this draft class. Neither Childress nor Smith showed any inkling that they'd rapidly turn into star players anytime soon. And Smoove would've definitely fit into that mold, had Woody not moved him to the 4. People may not agree with the decision, but I can easily see why the Hawks did what they did when it came to selecting Marvin.

Quote: I still say the mistake that we made initially with Marvin, is that we didn't immeadiately clear out the player that he was going to replace. As soon as that JJ deal was done, Harrington should've been out the door . . preferably for a PG. In fact, I would've bet my house that the JJ deal was going to be for Harrington and a 1st round pick. To me, that was the most logical thing for both teams to do. The Hawks would get JJ, plus be able to insert Marvin into the starting lineup either at PF or SF. ( Remember, the plan was to play JJ at PG, so the squad would've looked like this at the beginning of the 2005 season ) PG - JJ G - Chill F - Smoove F - Marvin C - ZaZa Then, when the JJ at PG experiment hits a snag, and Lue eats up most of the minutes at PG, you'd still have either Marvin or Chill as a starter, with the other getting major minutes. For the Suns, they get a proven player that can play the 3 or the 4. Plus, Harrington only had one more year on his deal, enabling him to just let him go if they wanted to.

Atlas, we don't need a SF now . . correct? Well, what would you have done if the Hawks got the #2 pick in the draft, instead of the #3 pick? We'd still have the same needs at PG and C . . but KEVIN DURANT . . a SF . . would be staring at us right in the face. So the 64 million dollar question is: Do you pass on KEVIN DURANT, and take Horford or Conley at #2, just beacuse the Hawks don't have a need at SF, but need a C or a PG? I mean, we basically were faced with that question 2 years ago, when Marvin was a top 3 pick projection. And yes, I know that Marvin in 2005 isn't nearly on the level of a Durant this year, but their draft status was similar. Both could've easily gone #1, but definitely wouldn't fall no lower than #3. And both are projected to be future stars in this league. So the situation would've been similar this year. Do you pass on a SF who is projected to be a star, in order to take a player at a position of need that might have a little less star power? I still say the mistake that we made initially with Marvin, is that we didn't immeadiately clear out the player that he was going to replace. As soon as that JJ deal was done, Harrington should've been out the door . . preferably for a PG. Very seldom do you see a top 2 pick sitting on the bench behind a player that will probably be gone in a year anyway. That pick almost always sees major playing time right away. That's why the Bulls had to just let PJ Brown walk. Tyus Thomas needs to be on the floor to gain experience, not sit behind some old veteran. Let him see if he can live up to his #2 pick billing. Let him make his mistakes while he is young, then correct them, to see if he can become an impact player by age 22 - 23. That's exactly what the Hawks are doing with Marvin.

I see what Diesel . . umm . . I mean Zone03 is saying. I'll do it a different way though. Pick-up style basketball. Captain 1 vs Captain 2 . . Capt. 1 gets 1st pick. Capt. 1 - JJ Capt. 2 - Smoove Capt. 1 - JJ, Horford Capt. 2 - Smoove, Marvin Capt. 1 - JJ, Horford, Chill Capt. 2 - Smoove, Marvin, Acie Capt. 1 - JJ, Horford, Chill, Shelden Capt. 2 - Smoove, Marvin, Acie, ZaZa Capt. 1 - JJ, Horford, Chill, Shelden, Speedy Capt. 2 - Smoove, Marvin, Acie, ZaZa, Salim That's probably how it would go, if you were picking a team. Capt. 1's team: PG - Speedy G - JJ F - Chill F - Horford F/C - Shelden Capt. 2's team: PG - Acie G - Salim F - Marvin F - Smoove F/C - ZaZa Damn, I honestly don't know which team I would put my money on. Capt. 1's team is much more defensive than Capt. 2's. But the offensive capabilities of Capt. 2's team can't be overlooked. The big advantage is obviously JJ vs Salim, but you could always move Acie to guard JJ, and let Salim take Speedy. Marvin vs Chill . . good battle Smoove vs Horford . . different styles but also a good battle Shelden vs ZaZa . . same there. It just goest to show how deep this team potentially is. And Lue and Solomon isn't even listed on these teams.

I got something in the works along these lines, although my system is different. I definitely see a need for a possible play-in game . . or two . . to balance things out for teams that don't win their conference championship. But that past conference history element is BS. The Big East was completely off the map as a football power, when Miami, BC, and V-Tech bolted to the ACC. Now, they have 3 legit teams that can play with anybody on any given Saturday ( Louisville, Rutgers, West Virginia ). You can't penalize a conference like the Big East, just because it sucked a few years back. You have to look at it on a year by year basis. I mean, look at the ACC 3 years ago, and look at it now. The Big East have more teams ranked in the top 20 this preseason, than the ACC does. You would've never said that 3 years ago. Bottom line is that we need a straight 8-team playoff that rewards conference champions, not pit the top 8 teams against each other. This makes every college game you play, especially in conference, of the utmost importance. The powers that be in college football makes this ish way more complicated than it should be, because they want to horde all the money for themselves. And that whole "we care for the kid's academics" stance is a bunch of BS as well. If they cared about the kids and the time they spend out of class, why are 5 of the 11 conferences having conference championship games the week before friggin finals? ( SEC, ACC, Big-12, MAC, C-USA ). And you better believe that if the NCAA mandatory 12-conference teams required to have a conference championship game rule was lifted, the Big-10 and Pac-10 would have a championship game immeadiately as well. Hell, it wouldn't have surprised me one bit, if the Big-10 would've try to pry Western Kentucky from going into the Sun Belt next year, and come to the Big-10, just to get that 12th team in the conference. I plan to have my site up sometime in September, because I'm going to not only lay the system out, but I'll show how it would've worked in past years. Some of the matchups would've been intriguing to say the least. Complex mathematical formulas aren't needed to make this work. Only common sense. The vast majority of college football fans definitely want some sort of playoff system.

Quote: Chill will be the odd man out and you can take it to the bank. There is a general glut at forward and Smith can play some 3 in a pinch or with Horford and Shelden together. This isn't going to be a neat and clean 3 vs. 4 deal. This is a situation where they can't keep everybody and they will hopefully trade him for a 1st round pick or another player who can add value. We really need help at the two as well. JJ is great but we need a slasher/change of pace two off the bench. We shoot way too many jumpers. Thats why I would have gone for a Conley at 3 and a Stuckey at 11. I think that would have had a greater impact on the team. I think right now, our 2nd unit looks like this: PG - Law ( 6-3 ) G - Lue or Salim ( both around 6 foot/6-1 ) F - Chill ( 6-9 ) F - ZaZa ( 6-11 ) F/C - Shelden ( 6-9 ) You're right when you say that we need a 2 . . preferably one that is around 6-5 . . 6-6. But as for the slasher/change of pace guy off the bench, Chill is that guy for us. Always has been. The pace of the game always increases, when Chill checks in. And he gets to the rim much more often than he shoots jumpers. Zone03 mentioned Acie Law, and I'm a big fan of his and how he plays the game. Acie will be able to get guys like Lue and Salim open shots from mid-range and from 3-point range, because Law likes to drive and kick the ball out to shooters. At 6-3, Law can also serve as that slasher/change of pace guy, if we wanted to go with a defensive lineup. PG - A. Johnson ( 6-3 ) G - Law ( 6-3 ) F - Chill ( 6-9 ) F - Solomon ( 6-10 ) F/C - Shelden ( 6-9 ) With this lineup, you have 2 guys who can get to the hole in Law and Chill. Law also has the ability to create his own shot, ala what JJ does. And both Law and AJ can hit the mid-range or 3 point jumper if left open. I know you're a Conley guy, but Acie will quickly convert you when you see how efficient he is on offense. If we subtract Chill, and add a slashing 2-guard, we're still going to need someone to play the 3 ( not named Josh Smith ).

Remember these names Diesel? true SFs: - Ken Norman - Stacey Augmon - Tyrone Corbin - Toni Kukoc - Chris Crawford - Demarr Johnson - Glen Robinson - Boris Diaw tweeners: - Al Harrington - Jimmy Jackson - LaPhonzo Ellis - Shareef Abdur-Rahim ( on spot occasions ) - Antoine Walker ( on spot occasions ) currently: - Joe Johnson ( who plays the 3 on spot occasions ) - Josh Childress - Marvin Williams - Josh Smith ( hopefully on spot occasions from now on ) 17 guys Diesel. 17 guys that we've played major minutes at SF during some point in their career as a Hawk, to try to replace the great Dominique Wilkins, and give us a star, or even a capable scorer at that position. And you say the SF position is a "dime a dozen"? Please. It's very hard to find a good SF, or any other position player for that matter, to either build a team around or solidify a team. I remember the days when Hawk fans would've slit their wrist, just to put Latrell Spreewell in that 3 spot. Just think if we would've added Spree to that 98 - 99 Hawk team that won 31 games in the strike year ( 4th in East ) PG - Mookie G - Smitty G/F - Spree F - Hendu C - Mutumbo Instead, we had LaPhonzo Ellis and Chris Crawford at the 3 that year. And isn't it ironic that the team that knocks us out of the 2nd round of the playoffs that year, were the NY Knicks. All of that hard battling with the Pistons in Round 1, just to get swept by the Knicks in Round 2. And who killed us? Spreewell. http://www.canoe.ca/NBAPlayoffs99/atl_ny.html Bottom line is this. At the time when Marvin was drafted, the Hawks had no one on the roster who showed any inkling that he could be a star. And because Marvin was projected to be one, the Hawks had no problem taking him, even though they had all of those SFs on the roster. It would be like the Blazers passing on Brandon Roy, just because they had Darius Miles, Martell Webster, and Juan Dixon on the roster. 3 years later, it looks as if Smoove could be a star ( if he stays at PF ) to compliment the star we already have in JJ. That limits the amount of touches that Marvin will get, but it shouldn't hamper his development. If he's still the same type of inconsistent, passive player in 07 - 08, people will start to change their minds about Marvin. This is definitely a proving ground type season for him.

Quote: And you are a blind Childress fan. If Chill is not at his ceiling then he is damn close. Guess what else? He won't be a Hawk much longer because somebody has to go due to extensions coming and a forward glut. So, you want to start a player near his ceiling that won't likely be on our team much longer...over a 20 year old guy who scored 13.1 ppg (17ppg the last month), and is 3 full years younger...oh, and said player will be a Hawk for a long time. Yeah, your position makes sense. Have you ever known a 20 year old player who scored 13ppg to get a lot better? 50% agree with this. * Yes, I do think that Chill is kind of at his ceiling. But he'll be a consistent 50% FG shooter, good defender, and a guy capable of giving you 25 - 35 minutes a geme, 11 - 15 ppg, and 5 - 7 rebs. Chill is that "Shane Battier - Ruben Patterson - good enough * No I don't think there is a glut of forwards that will cause Chill to be traded or not signed. Right now, we have 2 SFs ( Chill and Marvin ). The "gult" is at PF ( Smoove, Horford, ZaZa, and Shelden ). If we get this ownership situation settled this year, the Hawks could easily retain Chill, because I think retaining him is more important than keeping a guy like ZaZa in the future. I'll say this about Chill. If we don't make the playoffs, he's definitely gone. If we do make the playoffs, and Chill is a key reason why we're successful, the Hawks will probably try to do everything possible to keep him . . at a reasonable price. But I'm definitely not writing the kid off yet, just because Marvin is being groomed to be the starter at SF. We're still going to need a capable backup SF if we do let Chill go. I guess we can bring back Dijon "mustard" Thompson?